STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition as directed against the order dated August 4, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated by the appellant -petitioner that the judgment in the case was pronounced on 3.2.92, and the application for supply of the copy was moved on 6.2.92, and the copy was ready on the same day, which was taken by the Officer Incharge and was sent to the State Government for sanction through the Government Advocate on the same day, but the sanction was received on 21.3.92. 22.3.92 was Sunday and, therefore, the appeal was filed on 23.3.92. So far as the time taken in getting the certified copies and the presentation of the appeal are concerned, they have been properly explained by the petitioner. Why the sanction could not be granted by the State Government within the stipulated period and what efforts were made by the petitioner for getting the sanction and why it was delayed, have not been explained by the petitioner. Though it is not necessary that each and every day of the delay should be explained, but when no explanation is coming from the side of the petitioner how the delay occurred and what was the reason for not getting the sanction in time, then it was purely a negligence on the part of the petitioner that the appeal could not be presented in time. Though the law requires that the Court should adept a liberal approach and should condone the delay if sufficient case is shown for not presenting the appeal in time, but if no cause, at all, has been shown then the 'delay cannot be condoned. No sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner in the present case for condoning the delay.

(2.) IN this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the learned lower Court cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. The order passed by the learned lower Court, therefore, does not require any interference.